Post on 16-Jan-2016
description
Kevin Yang 106 Meghan Howard 4/6/15
Tantric practices and beliefs are central to tantric Buddhism in India. However, the accounts and
descriptions given by differing parties, in this case Lama Yeshe and Anthony Tribe, are drastically distinct
from each other. Although seeped in the same studies and practices, Lama Yeshe and Anthony Tribe
present very different pictures of the nature of tantric practices.
The main difference is that while Tribe presents tantric Buddhism in pieces for a more “tricky,
technical mind” to understand, Yeshe culminates all those aspects into a more abstract whole. As with
most Western inspections of Oriental practices, Tribe presents a very clinical, dissected, and categorized
study of tantric Buddhism. As Lama Yeshe puts it, it is easier for westerners to digest the information in
this form. Tribe cleanly separates distinct aspects of tantric Buddhism, including significant features,
texts, and tantras. However, it is important to note that even Tribe recognizes the shortcomings of this
method. “Attempts to specify the nature of tantric Buddhism in any detail quickly run into difficulties
since it proves hard to formulate a definition without excluding or including too much”(Reader 462).
Tribe settles with a categorical method but this mainly leaves out a personal understanding and
experience that helps the reader understand the “why” behind the nature of the tantric practices, unlike
Carrither’s accounts of forest dwelling monks, for example, in which he categorized aspects of forest
dwelling monk beliefs and practices which were supported and elucidated by his documentation of
Anandasiri. As a result Tribe presents a neat, understandable, but faulty image of tantric Buddhism
which is exactly what the 2nd paragraph of Yeshe’s commentary warns against, understanding simply by
reading or seeing. In a sense, Yeshe’s commentary on tantric Buddhism is both more and less fulfilling
than Tribe’s essay. Yeshe presents a more interpersonal image of tantric Buddhism, focusing on the
meanings behind practices and goals but is much more abstract and therefore harder to understand as a
whole. It is difficult from a Western, and by association an outsider’s, perspective to understand the
quality of “becoming divine” or transforming ordinary actions into divine ones simply by immersion
because most Western religions do not incorporate personal apotheosis; humans are inherently flawed
in some way and hierarchy dictates a standing or power difference. Therefore, Yeshe’s commentary
presents a less technical and more abstract form of tantric Buddhism because the mindset that he has in
approaching tantric Buddhism is incomparable to what Tribe neatly dissects into significant aspects,
beliefs, and practices.
As with most religious concepts, tantric Buddhism is difficult to understand simply by analysis of
practice and beliefs alone. Tribe presents tantric Buddhism as such, and while it is helpful on a more
insular level Lama Yeshe’s commentary reveals a practitioner’s interpersonal accounts, albeit more
abstract and difficult to comprehend.